Pramod Ramchandra Gurav vs Divisional Forest Officer and Ors-2 Advocate - A. A. Mahadeshwar — 6/2025

Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28(1). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT on 06th March 2026.

Case disposed

Condn of Delay ULP - Delay application

CNR: MHLC090000432025

Filing Number

46/2025

Filing Date

18-Jan-2025

Registration No

6/2025

Registration Date

20-Jan-2025

Court

Labour Court, Kolhapur

Judge

1-Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.

Decision Date

06-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28(1)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Pramod Ramchandra Gurav

    Adv. B. B. Powar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Divisional Forest Officer and Ors-2 Advocate - A. A. Mahadeshwar

  2. 2.Forestry Inspector Social Forestry Zone

  3. 3.Government of Maharashtra

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary The Labour Court at Kolhapur allowed an application for condonation of delay in filing an unfair labour practice complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The court found justified grounds to condone the 2-year 2-month delay, reasoning that the applicant (a forest worker) provided specific reasons including poor financial condition, lack of legal knowledge, remote location, and hope for reinstatement following COVID-19 work; since the opponent failed to rebut these contentions with evidence, and allowing the application would advance justice without prejudicing the defendants' right to defend, the complaint was ordered to be registered accordingly with each party bearing their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.

  4. 02-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.

  5. 12-Feb-2026

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.

  6. 20-Jan-2026

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.

  7. 06-Jan-2026

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.

  8. 17-Dec-2025

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.

  9. 18-Nov-2025

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.

  10. 03-Nov-2025

    EvidenceView PDF

  11. 03-Nov-2025

    Respondent Evidence

    Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.

  12. 26-Sep-2025

    Cross Examination

    Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.

  13. 22-Aug-2025

    Cross Examination

    Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.

  14. 07-Aug-2025

    Cross Examination

    Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.

  15. 24-Jul-2025

    Cross Examination

    Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.

  16. 10-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.

  17. 20-Jun-2025

    Documents Issues

    Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.

  18. 22-May-2025

    Appearance

    Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.

  19. 22-Apr-2025

    Appearance

    Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.

  20. 25-Mar-2025

    Service Report

    Judge, Labour Court No. 1 Kolhapur.

  21. 24-Feb-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  22. 18-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 6/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Labour Court at Kolhapur allowed an application for condonation of delay in filing an unfair labour practice complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The court found justified grounds to condone the 2-year 2-month delay, reasoning that the applicant (a forest worker) provided specific reasons including poor financial condition, lack of legal knowledge, remote location, and hope for reinstatement following COVID-19 work; since the opponent failed to rebut these contentions with evidence, and allowing the application would advance justice without prejudicing the defendants' right to defend, the complaint was ordered to be registered accordingly with each party bearing their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case